During a visit to the City of David last week, I noticed that the Pool next to the Gihon Spring is being opened up for viewing. Scaffolding has been put inside the pool, apparently in preparation for the casting of a permanent concrete ceiling. The rocky southern edge of the pool is clearly visible, but there no remains of any wall built on that side could be detected.
The Pool from which water was drawn from inside the City of David. Photo: Leen Ritmeyer
In the initial reports it was claimed that a tower surrounded this pool. A reconstruction drawing on the site shows the Pool Tower to the left of the Spring Tower, a defensive tower built over the Gihon Spring. Both towers were accessed via a fortified passageway:
Reconstruction drawing of the Pool Tower as shown in the City of David excavations. Photo: Nathaniel Ritmeyer
Although we have to wait for an official report, it appears that the pool was open on all sides, apart from the protective passage giving access to the waters of the pool at its northwest corner. The unprotected pool therefore must have been located inside the city walls. A larger area than was thought previously must have been added to the east of the original city.
Readers may be interested to follow the ‘Popular Archaeology’ website which has an article on the daily routine of an archaeological dig in Jerusalem. The website also has a video of the renewed Ophel excavations, which began in 1975.
Leen (left) discussing the excavation results of the first season in 1975 with the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar (middle) and Meir Ben-Dov (right).
Certain images in the Image Library have been particularly popular with both teachers and publishers. Among these is the drawing of the development of the Temple Mount throughout the ages:
King Solomon built the First Temple on the top of Mount Moriah which is visible in the centre of this cut-away drawing. This mountain top can be seen today, inside the Islamic Dome of the Rock. King Hezekiah built a square Temple Mount (yellow walls) around the site of the Temple, which he also renewed. In the Hasmonean period, the square Temple Mount was enlarged to the south (red walls). Finally, King Herod the Great enlarged the mount to double its size (grey walls) by building 15 feet (5 m) thick retaining walls, which are still standing today. The many cisterns cut into the mountain are also shown.
Often downloaded together with this is an image which shows a series of reconstruction drawings of the Temple Mount in the different historical periods:
These five drawings show the five stages in the development of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. From top to bottom: 1. The square Temple Mount built by King Hezekiah. 2. The Akra Fortress (red) was built by the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC to control the local Jewish population. The fortress was destroyed by the Maccabees in 141 BC. 3. After the destruction of the Akra, the Hasmoneans extended the Temple Mount to the south (blue). 4. Herod the Great renewed the Temple Mount by enlarging the square Temple Mount to double its size and building a new Temple. 5. During the Umayyad period, the Dome of the Rock was built on the site of the Temple and the El Aqsa mosque on that of the Royal Stoa. Large public buildings were erected to the south and west of the Temple Mount
I recently had the opportunity of devoting myself to a study of the development of the mount in the time of Hezekiah and in the process discovered evidence of some dramatic political upheavals in the time of the later kings of Judah. This new drawing shows that virtually all four corners of the square Temple Mount have been preserved:
Isometric drawing showing the archaeological remains of the outer walls of the 500 cubit square Temple Mount. The dark-tinted areas are the actual or projected remains, connected with reconstructed masonry courses.
Space and time does not allow me to describe these remains here (seeThe Quest – Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for photographs and a detailed analysis). According to 1 Kings 6, King Solomon built a new Temple on Mount Moriah and the following chapter tells us that he also built a house (palace) for himself with a Hall of Pillars and a Hall of Judgment adjacent to it. It was presumably in the latter building that Solomon demonstrated his wisdom in dealing with the two women both claiming to be the mother of the same child. Next to this royal complex he built the House of the Forest of Lebanon, where he kept military equipment, such as the shields of beaten gold, that were later taken away by Shishak, king of Egypt.
According to 1 Kings 6 and 7, Solomon built a new Temple and Palace Complex on Mount Moriah. This schematic drawing shows an arrangement of the different buildings, based on parallels with similar complexes excavated elsewhere in the Middle East. The main entrance was through the Hall of Pillars (1 Kings 7.6), which was flanked by the Throne Hall (1 Kings 7.7) on the right, where Solomon judged, and the armoury, called the House of the Forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 7.2-5) on the left. In the centre of this complex is the palace, called Solomon’s House (1 Kings 7.8a), which had a separate wing for his wife, Pharaoh’s Daughter (1 Kings 7.8b). From a large courtyard in front of Solomon’s House, a special Royal Ascent (1 Kings 10.5 KJV) led up to the Temple (1 Kings 6), which lay on higher ground.
There were two stages in the destruction of Jerusalem of the First Temple period. During the first stage, in the fourth month of 586 BCE, the city wall on the Western Hill, together with the Middle Gate, was destroyed, as well as the king’s palace and the ‘House of the People’ (Jer. 39.8). These two complexes consisted of Hezekiah’s newly built royal palace on the Western Hill of Jerusalem and the adjacent House of the Assembly, where the nobles of Judah held council.
The second stage of the conquest of Jerusalem took place in the fifth month when Nebuzaradan burnt the Temple and the king’s palace in the City of David (2 Kings 25.9-10).
So, what happened to Solomon’s original palace?
I had already suggested in The Quest that King Hezekiah was the original builder of the square mount. He was also a great reformer and is credited with reinstituting the Temple services. The first action he took was the opening of the doors of the Temple and the cleansing of its interior from desecration (2 Chron. 29.3-36). He encouraged the priests and Levites to rededicate themselves and to reinstate the Mosaic sacrifices. This was followed by the keeping of the Passover, which had not been kept for many years (2 Chron. 30.5).
I had also noted that the Solomonic complex must have been completely dismantled by Hezekiah and the area it previously occupied incorporated within the extended square Temple Mount. His actions in removing the royal complex and thus separating it from the sacred area may have been motivated by the description of God’s anger in the prophecy of Ezekiel 43:8. Here the prophet describes the reason for God’s displeasure as: “their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall betweenme and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.”
Plan of the present-day Temple Mount with the location of the 500 cubit square Temple Mount, showing Solomon's Temple and his adjacent royal and military complex.
On the above plan, the blue line indicates what would appear to have comprised the “wall between me and them”. It divides the square mount in two equal halves and may be an indicator as to how Hezekiah laid out the boundaries of the square Temple Mount. The blue dot indicates the place where pottery from an apparently undisturbed layer dating from the end of the First Temple period was found during repair work on the Temple Mount, see this previous post.
Solomon’s royal and military complex was located to the immediate south of the Temple. As history has shown, the royal household (e.g. Queen Athaliah and Kings Uzzah and Ahaz) tried on several occasions to control the temple services and the priesthood. By dismantling this royal complex, Hezekiah effectively separated state from religion.
Hezekiah’s religious and political reforms as expressed in his Temple platform construction would therefore have served as an inspiration and encouragement for the renewal of a purified priesthood and temple service, free from political interference.
Justin Taylor, with whom I worked on the ESV Study Bible, is co-authoring, with Andreas Köstenberger, a volume entitled Jesus’s Final Week: An Easter Chronology and Commentary. His interview with me concerning the High Priestly Palace can be seen on his blog:
He [Leen] has tentatively identified the “Palatial Mansion” (or “Herodian Mansion”) as the place of residence for Annas the high priest. If this is correct, then this would be a “look inside” the first phase of Jesus’s Jewish trial. And it may explain things like where the courtyard was located and how Jesus could look at Peter though they were in two different locations (Jesus inside and Peter outside, warming himself by a charcoal fire).
In this photograph, my daughter-in-law Clare stands in the place where Peter would have stood when Jesus looked at him from the centre of the Reception Room.
The place where Peter stood when he met Jesus' eyes. Photo: Nathaniel Ritmeyer
According to Israel Hayom, journalist Benny Liss screened a movie of the finding of a “mass grave” just outside the Golden Gate a few years ago. Apparently “thousand of skeletons and human bones” were buried in a cave near the Temple Mount.
Jews, Christians or Muslims? An image from the film of the skeletons. | Photo credit: Yoav Ari Dudkevitch
It is not clear if those bones belonged to Jews, Muslims or Christians. The announcement of the finding of this grave coincided with the Jewish Festival of Tisha be-Av, the day on which the Jews mourn the destruction of both the First and Second Temples. This, of course, shows that Benny Liss believes that they were Jewish, but the point is that that has not been proved yet.
We need to wait till the site can be excavated, before more definite conclusions drawn from this amazing find.
About a year ago, I published a post in which I warned that “Cement Creates Temple Mount Time Bomb”, which was published in Biblical Archaeology Review.
In that article I observed that:
“ordinary cement was used in the repairs of walls and pavements. Large areas of new pavement have been laid in the southern part of the Temple Mount, again with ordinary cement in between the joints. This causes a greater flow toward the outer walls, which simply cannot absorb so much water.”
In a previous post, I warned of the structural problems created by wrong repairs to the Temple Mount walls:
One of the first lessons I was taught during the MA course in the Conservation of Ancient Buildings at the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies of the University of York, UK, was that one NEVER uses ordinary Portland cement in the repair of ancient buildings. It prevents ancient walls from “breathing” and eventually causes the collapse of these walls. The Waqf’s continued use of modern building materials in the repair of these bulges and other walls is the equivalent of putting a time-bomb in the walls of the Temple Mount.
Alexander Schick sent me some photographs which shows that my prediction was true:
It is clear that the time bomb is ticking louder. It is only a matter of time when large sections of the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount will collapse. When that happens, the Muslims will predictably incriminate the Israelis, when, in fact, they only have themselves to blame.
Yisrael Medad reported yesterday that renovation work is again being carried out inside the Dome of the Rock and that scaffolding has been put on The Rock, known as the Foundation Stone.
He rightly complains that none of the Israel State authorities have shown any inclination to commit themselves to the Protection of Holy Places Law:
The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places…2 (a) Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.
His article was accompanied by these pictures, which were scanned from the Makor Rishon newspapaer:
Pails, ropes, the bottom rungs of a construction workers' support platform and other items required for the renovation of a building were placed on The Rock.The Dome of the Rock is being renewed and no one from amongst Israel's Chief Rabbinate nor any archaeological supervisory institution was asked to either agree, oversee or lend an opinion.
The Rock, known in Arabic as the Sakhra, around which the Dome of the Rock was built, was of course the location of the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. This drawing shows the location of The Rock inside the Dome of the Rock:
The plan shows the relationship between The Rock and Solomon’s Temple:
This plan shows The Rock, which is the top of Mount Moriah, (now inside the Islamic Dome of the Rock), where Abraham was sent to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 22.2). The Holy of Holies (Most Holy Place) of Solomon's Temple stood on this mountain top. The walls of Solomon's Temple are indicated in blue. When Solomon built the Temple, it was necessary to create flat areas in order for the rectangular foundation stones to stand perfectly horizontal. The foundation trench of the southern wall of Solomon's temple can still be detected. The western and northern walls were built against rock scarps. In the centre of the Holy of Holies is a level depression that was specially made for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kings 8.6,21). After the destruction of the First Temple in 486 BC, the Second Temple was built in the same location.
Medad’s article is followed up by Nadav Shragai’s blog post “The Temple Mount: Second Temple-era mikveh discovered under Al-Aqsa mosque”. This, of course, is not a recent find, as it was already discovered in the 1930’s by Hamilton, although made public only a few years ago. See these previous posts here and here.
Nadav’s post is, however, worth reading as it gives a potted history of what happened on the Temple Mount since the devastating earthquake in 1927.
Dr. Steven Fine of the Yeshiva University Center for Israel Studies in New York is heading The Arch of Titus Digital Restoration Project in Rome, which has as its aim the scanning of the menorah panel for evidence of ancient color.
Today the results were announced:
From June 5 to 7, 2012 an international team of scholars led by the Yeshiva University Center for Israel Studies in partnership with the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma undertook a pilot study of the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum, the ancient civic center of Rome, Italy. The focus of attention was the Menorah panel and the relief showing the deification of Titus at the apex of the arch.
The arch was originally dedicated after the Emperor Titus’ death in 81 CE and celebrates his victory in the Jewish War of 66-74 CE, which climaxed with the destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in the summer of 70 CE.
The arch has three bas reliefs. One shows the deification of Titus. Two other reliefs depict the triumphal procession held in Rome in 71 CE: in one we see Roman soldiers carrying the spoils of war through the city, including the famous Menorah (the seven-branched candelabrum) and other treasures of the destroyed Temple. These were put on display in Rome in the Temple of Peace not far from the arch. The second panel shows Titus riding in triumph through the city.
High resolution three-dimensional scans of the Menorah and the deification reliefs were made, and part of the Menorah relief was examined to determine whether any traces of paint decoration were preserved. A Breuckmann GmbH 3D scanner was used for the data capture. UV-VIS spectrometry was employed to detect color on the marble reliefs.
The pilot project was a complete success. The scan data were processed to create a 3D representation of the form of the reliefs with sub-millimeter accuracy. Traces of yellow ochre were found on the arms and base of the Menorah. This discovery is consistent with biblical, early Christian, and Talmudic writings and particularly eye-witness descriptions of the golden menorah by the first century historian Josephus.
In the next phase, the team plans to expand the search for ancient paint over the entire surface of the arch, which will also be scanned in 3D. The data collected will enable the Yeshiva University team to create a three-dimensional digital model of how the arch originally appeared, including the colors decorating its surface. The model will be added to Rome Reborn, a 3D digital model of the entire city of Rome at the peak of its development.
Dr. Fine on Site in Rome
It is interesting to note that polychromy is becoming a new focus in Jewish Studies. Usually synagogues and ancient buildings are shown in white, but originally much more color was used in the decoration of buildings than we would expect.
In the case of the Jerusalem Temple, it is often portrayed as a building with a white facade, but Josephus called Herod’s Temple “a structure more note-worthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412) and in War 5.207–226 he gives a glowing description of the Temple (The Quest, p. 373):
The sacred edifice itself, the holy Temple, in the central position, was approached by a flight of twelve steps. The façade was of equal height and breadth, each being a hundred cubits; but the building behind was narrower…. The exterior of the building wanted nothing that could as- tound either mind or eye. For, being covered on all sides with massive plates of gold, the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of the purest white. From its sum- mit protruded sharp golden spikes to prevent birds from settling upon them and polluting the roof.
The traces of yellow ochre that were found on the arms and base of the Menorah may support Josephus’ description of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem.
Just returned from Dublin where our attendance at Hekhal’s conference on “The Other Temples” was time well spent. As Lidia Matassa, the society’s president, wrote in her introduction to the conference programme:
“Hekhal was born in July 2011, out of a desire to create a new academic society in Ireland, whose focus is the history of the ancient Near East. There are many academic conferences held in Ireland annually, but none whose focus is solely the history and historiography of the ancient Near East and the biblical world. It is the hope of the committee that over the next few years Hekhal will become prominent in the academic landscape and will provide a forum for the many academics whose work in this area finds itself without a proper and permanent place to be aired.”
The Church of Ireland Theological Institute, where the conference was held.
The programme can be seen on the society’s website, but we will try to give a bit of the flavour of the three days we spent together in the “fair city”. Jason Gosnell gave an overview of the subject, setting the scene with his talk: “Interpreting YHWH’s Space, an Examination of the Temples of the G-d of Israel”. David Morgan also explored the question of whether the multiple temple sites were in competition with or complementary to the Jerusalem Temple. There was lots of Hebrew conversation to be heard, with Israeli archaeologists reporting fresh from the field. Yossi Garfinkel gave the first academic presentation of the finds from Khirbet Qeiyafa, followed by an animated discussion session. In a talk called “The Temple in the hearts of Galileans”, Motti Aviam showcased the large decorated stone block found in Migdal (Magdala), which he identifies as a symbolic representation of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Attendees experienced some of the passion involved in Temple topics in the discussion arising from Yossi Patrich’s proposal of his theory on the development of the Temple Mount in opposition to the one I have proposed (See: Leen Ritmeyer, “The Hasmonean Temple Mount”, in: The Quest – Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, pp. 207-220). Patrich suggested that the outer court of the First Temple sloped downhill and that Simon the Just leveled it out. According to him, the southern boundary was determined by a Roman staircase which he mistakenly interpreted as a Hasmonean “staged wall”. My paper was entitled: “Relating the Temple Scroll from Qumran to the architecture of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem” and was based on work I carried out with the late Prof. Yigael Yadin shortly before his death.
Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme also spoke on a theme connected to the Jerusalem Temple, looking into the links between it and the temple on Mount Gerizim. Other talks based on the subject of Qumran were given by David Hamidovic and Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, while Benedikt Eckhardt dealt with: “The Yahad, Temple Ideology and Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations”. The Temple at Elephantine was the subject of papers by Gard Granerod and Stephen Germany, while the theme of Egypt was also pursued by Andrew Krause in his: “Diaspora synagogues, Leontopolis, and the Other Jewish Temples of Egypt”. Meron Piotrkowski discussed Onias’ Temple.
The Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to Barnabas were the subjects of Clement William Grene and Douglas Estes respectively. Naphtali Meshel set up an interesting model for sacrificial language. Tyson Putthoff spoke on “The Edible Shekhinah: Temple, Vision and Transformation in Bavli Sotah 49a”. Members of the Hekhal committee also gave papers, Lidia Matassa examining the identification of a synagogue at Jericho, Jason McCann, “Imagining the Temple” and Jason Silverman suggesting that the renewal of the Jerusalem cult in the Persian period may have had ritual connections with Iran. Most encouragingly, there was still quite an audience for the last speaker, William Hamblin, whose subject “The Temple in the Qur’an”, brought us forward five hundred years from the destruction of the Temple, but showed its enduring spiritual significance.
The most popular site among attendees to visit in Dublin appeared to be the Chester Beatty Library, where biblical papyri dating from the second to the fourth century proved a great lure.
The Permanent display of the Pauline Letters, Chester Beatty Library, Dublin.
After the conference, speakers went their various ways, with most of them promising to submit their papers for publication in the conference proceedings. Another Hekhal conference is planned for 2013.
After some initial suspense, The Hebrew University has released the following notification about evidence of a cult in Judah at the time of King David, with implications for Solomon’s Temple:
Hebrew University archaeologist finds the first evidence of a cult in Judah at the time of King David, with implications for Solomon’s Temple
Prof. Yosef Garfinkel with a stome shrine model found at Khirbet Qeiyafa (Credit: Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, May 8, 2012—Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, the Yigal Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, announced today the discovery of objects that for the first time shed light on how a cult was organized in Judah at the time of King David. During recent archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified city in Judah adjacent to the Valley of Elah, Garfinkel and colleagues uncovered rich assemblages of pottery, stone and metal tools, and many art and cult objects. These include three large rooms that served as cultic shrines, which in their architecture and finds correspond to the biblical description of a cult at the time of King David.
This discovery is extraordinary as it is the first time that shrines from the time of early biblical kings were uncovered. Because these shrines pre-date the construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem by 30 to 40 years, they provide the first physical evidence of a cult in the time of King David, with significant implications for the fields of archaeology, history, biblical and religion studies.
The expedition to Khirbet Qeiyafa has excavated the site for six weeks each summer since 2007, with co-director Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The revolutionary results of five years of work are presented today in a new book, Footsteps of King David in the Valley of Elah, published by Yedioth Ahronoth.
Images of the new discoveries can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/garfinkel. Images must be credited to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Located approximately 30 km. southwest of Jerusalem in the valley of Elah, Khirbet Qeiyafa was a border city of the Kingdom of Judah opposite the Philistine city of Gath. The city, which was dated by 10 radiometric measurements (14C) done at Oxford University on burned olive pits, existed for a short period of time between ca. 1020 to 980 BCE, and was violently destroyed.
The biblical tradition presents the people of Israel as conducting a cult different from all other nations of the ancient Near East by being monotheistic and an-iconic (banning human or animal figures). However, it is not clear when these practices were formulated, if indeed during the time of the monarchy (10-6th centuries BC), or only later, in the Persian or Hellenistic eras.
The absence of cultic images of humans or animals in the three shrines provides evidence that the inhabitants of the place practiced a different cult than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines, observing a ban on graven images.
The findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa also indicate that an elaborate architectural style had developed as early as the time of King David. Such construction is typical of royal activities, thus indicating that state formation, the establishment of an elite, social level and urbanism in the region existed in the days of the early kings of Israel. These finds strengthen the historicity of the biblical tradition and its architectural description of the Palace and Temple of Solomon.
According to Prof. Garfinkel, “This is the first time that archaeologists uncovered a fortified city in Judah from the time of King David. Even in Jerusalem we do not have a clear fortified city from his period. Thus, various suggestions that completely deny the biblical tradition regarding King David and argue that he was a mythological figure, or just a leader of a small tribe, are now shown to be wrong.” Garfinkel continued, “Over the years, thousands of animal bones were found, including sheep, goats and cattle, but no pigs. Now we uncovered three cultic rooms, with various cultic paraphernalia, but not even one human or animal figurine was found. This suggests that the population of Khirbet Qeiyafa observed two biblical bans—on pork and on graven images—and thus practiced a different cult than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines.”
Description of the findings and their significance
The three shrines are part of larger building complexes. In this respect they are different from Canaanite or Philistine cults, which were practiced in temples—separate buildings dedicated only to rituals. The biblical tradition described this phenomenon in the time of King David: “He brought the ark of God from a private house in Kyriat Yearim and put it in Jerusalem in a private house” (2 Samuel 6).
The cult objects include five standing stones (Massebot), two basalt altars, two pottery libation vessels and two portable shrines. No human or animal figurines were found, suggesting the people of Khirbet Qeiyafa observed the biblical ban on graven images.
Qeiyafa shrine with standing stones. (Credit: Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
Two portable shrines (or “shrine models”) were found, one made of pottery (ca. 20 cm high) and the other of stone (35 cm high). These are boxes in the shape of temples, and could be closed by doors.
The clay shrine is decorated with an elaborate façade, including two guardian lions, two pillars, a main door, beams of the roof, folded textile and three birds standing on the roof. Two of these elements are described in Solomon’s Temple: the two pillars (Yachin and Boaz) and the textile (Parochet).
The Clay Shrine (Credit: Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
The stone shrine is made of soft limestone and painted red. Its façade is decorated by two elements. The first are seven groups of roof-beams, three planks in each. This architectural element, the “triglyph,” is known in Greek classical temples, like the Parthenon in Athens. Its appearance at Khirbet Qeiyafa is the earliest known example carved in stone, a landmark in world architecture.
The Stone Shrine (Credit: Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
The second decorative element is the recessed door. This type of doors or windows is known in the architecture of temples, palaces and royal graves in the ancient Near East. This was a typical symbol of divinity and royalty at the time.
The stone model helps us to understand obscure technical terms in the description of Solomon’s palace as described in 1 Kings 7, 1-6. The text uses the term “Slaot,” which were mistakenly understood as pillars and can now be understood as triglyphs. The text also uses the term “Sequfim”, which was usually understood as nine windows in the palace, and can now be understood as “triple recessed doorway.”
Similar triglyphs and recessed doors can be found in the description of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6, Verses 5, 31-33, and in the description of a temple by the prophet Ezekiel (41:6). These biblical texts are replete with obscure technical terms that have lost their original meaning over the millennia. Now, with the help of the stone model uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the biblical text is clarified. For the first time in history we have actual objects from the time of David, which can be related to monuments described in the Bible.
In addition, Barnea Levi Selavan sent along the following summary:
“Based on two decorated cultic boxes Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority suggest revising the understanding of several biblical verses and practices. They suggest the small boxes are actually the arks used in Israel as opposed to the ark of the desert. They suggest finding them in the rooms is akin to the four times the ark was kept in someone’s house. The decorations include a triple recessed design which could be the “sheqafim” and that insets of three lines on the top of the box are triglyphs which are the earliest found and explain the word “tzla’ot” in Solomon’s temple and in Ezekiel’s description. Other elements hint at the curtain and pillars. One has decorative lions. Prof Garfinkel suggests that only a contemporary writer would have this accuracy.”
These objects are, of course, fascinating and cast light on the way Israelites designed cult sites away from Jerusalem. I doubt, however, if these boxes were “arks as opposed to the ark of the desert”. Similar objects were found in Israel from an earlier period, for example this house model from Early Bronze Age (Canaanite) Arad.
Arad House (Credit Israel Museum).
Shrines have also been known from the earliest times, such as this Twin Temple complex in EB Arad:
Standing stones are also known from earlier periods.
The question remains if these two boxes, particularly, the stone box, could be prototypes of the Solomonic Temple which hadn’t been built yet at that time. Because these “Qeiyafa shrines” date from the Davidic period, it does not mean to say that they are proof of Israelite monotheism. The Bible mentions several non-Jerusalem cult sites (high places) and this one in Qeiyafa appears to fall in the same category. Doubtless, more light will be cast on the subject in the coming days.
